Re H (A Minor) (Custody: Interim Care and Control): CA 1991

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘So it is not a case of parental right opposed to the interests of the child, with an assumption that parental right prevails unless there are strong reasons in terms of the interests of the child. It is the same test which is being applied, the welfare of the child. And all that Re K is saying, as I understand it, is that of course, there is a strong supposition that, other things being equal, it is in the interests of the child that it shall remain with its natural parents. But that has to give way to particular needs in particular situations.’


Butler-Sloss LJ, Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR


[1991] 2 FLR 109


Children Act 1989


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRe W (A Minor) (Residence Order) CA 3-May-1993
There is a rebuttable but strong presumption that a child should be with his or her natural parents. Waite LJ said: ‘The authorities which have been cited by Balcombe LJ illustrate the difficulty of finding, within the infinite variety of . .
CitedIn Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.244486